Rel: November 7, 2025
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________
CR-2024-0211 _________________________
J.D.N.B.
v.
State of Alabama
Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court (CC-23-601)
COLE, Judge.
J.D.N.B. appeals the Morgan Circuit Court's judgment adjudicating
him a youthful offender based on the underlying charge of receiving
stolen property in the second degree, a violation of § 13A-8-18, Ala. Code
1975. CR-2024-0211
Facts and Procedural History
On April 14, 2023, J.D.N.B. was indicted for second-degree
receiving stolen property, in violation of § 13A-8-18, Ala. Code 1975. (C.
5-6.) On August 8, 2023, J.D.N.B. filed an application for youthful-
offender status, which was granted.1 The case was then set for a bench
trial.
On April 10, 2022, Officer Jacob Wooldridge, with the Decatur
Police Department, was on patrol and observed a stationary vehicle in
the middle of the road. Off. Wooldridge conducted a traffic stop on the
vehicle and encountered two females and J.D.N.B. J.D.N.B. was seated
in the rear, driver's side seat of the vehicle. While speaking with the
driver, Off. Wooldridge observed the barrel of a handgun "sticking out"
from underneath "the rear driver's seat" in front of J.D.N.B. Off.
Wooldridge then pulled J.D.N.B. and the other two passengers out of the
vehicle, detained them, and retrieved the handgun. (R. 5-7.) Off.
Wooldridge put the handgun's serial number into the National Crime
1BecauseJ.D.N.B. was granted youthful-offender status, he is referred to by his initials in this opinion. Rule 52, Ala. R. App. P. 2 CR-2024-0211
Information Center ("NCIC") database and got a "return," indicating that
the handgun was reported stolen. (R. 7.) Off. Wooldridge then arrested
J.D.N.B. and read him his Miranda2 rights. J.D.N.B. told Off.
Wooldridge that the handgun fell out of his waistband when the vehicle
was coming to a stop and that he bought the handgun from "an unknown
subject … off the street" for $300. (R. 8.)
At J.D.N.B.'s bench trial, J.D.N.B. made a "hearsay" objection to
Off. Wooldridge's testimony about the NCIC database indicating that the
gun was stolen, but the trial-court judge said that it would allow the
testimony for the sole purpose of showing the officer's subsequent actions,
not to show that the gun was stolen. (R. 7-8.) J.D.N.B. subsequently
made a hearsay objection to Off. Wooldridge testifying about his contact
with the "originating agency," the Houston Police Department ("HPD")
in Houston, Texas, that confirmed that the handgun was stolen. (R. 9.)
J.D.N.B. also objected and argued that the incident reports from the HPD
were hearsay. (R. 10-11.) After a lengthy discussion, the trial court
permitted the State to introduce the HPD's police reports into evidence,
2Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
3 CR-2024-0211
over J.D.N.B.'s multiple hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections
and his assertion the reports were hearsay and "actually double hearsay,"
to prove that the handgun was, in fact, stolen. (R. 11-16.)
At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court adjudicated
J.D.N.B. a youthful offender and subsequently sentenced J.D.N.B. to two
years in the Morgan County Community Corrections Program. (R. 27,
31.) This appeal follows.
Discussion
J.D.N.B. argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously denied
his motion for a judgment of acquittal because "the only evidence that the
gun was stolen was erroneously admitted over objection." (J.D.N.B.'s
brief, p. 10.) That argument is premised on J.D.N.B.'s underlying
argument that the HPD reports, indicating that the gun in J.D.N.B.'s
possession had been stolen, "should have been denied admission into
evidence" because they were inadmissible hearsay and were not properly
authenticated. (J.D.N.B.'s brief, p. 20.) Thus, before addressing
J.D.N.B.'s argument that the trial court erroneously denied his motion
for a judgment of acquittal, we must first address whether the HPD
4 CR-2024-0211
reports were erroneously admitted because they were not authenticated
and because they were inadmissible hearsay evidence.
I. Authentication
J.D.N.B. argues for the first time on appeal that the HPD reports
were inadmissible because they were not certified copies and, thus, were
not properly authenticated. The law is clear that " '[r]eview on appeal is
restricted to questions and issues properly and timely raised at trial' "
and that " '[a]n issue raised for the first time on appeal is not subject to
appellate review because it has not been properly preserved and
presented.' " Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So. 2d 793, 794 (Ala. 2003) (quoting
Newsome v. State, 570 So. 2d 703, 717 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989) and Pate
v. State, 601 So. 2d 210, 213 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)). Because no
argument was presented to the trial court as to authentication, J.D.N.B.
failed to preserve this argument for appellate review.
Moreover, J.D.N.B.'s hearsay objections did not preserve his
appellate argument that the HPD reports were not properly
authenticated. It is well settled that the " 'authentication requirement is
totally separate' " from other requirements laid out in the hearsay
exceptions. Oaks v. Parkerson Constr., LLC, 303 So. 3d 1141, 1146 (Ala.
5 CR-2024-0211
2020) (quoting Hampton v. Bruno's, Inc., 646 So. 2d 597, 599 (Ala. 1994)).
See also Hampton, 646 So. 2d at 599 (holding that "[t]he offering party
must always meet the requirements of the business records exception in
addition to the authentication requirement, if the other party makes the
proper objection"), and Thomas v. State, 302 So. 3d 720, 728 (Ala. Crim.
App. 2019) (holding that, "[b]ecause Thomas's sole objection to the bank
statements at trial was on authentication grounds, she is bound by that
objection and may not now argue on appeal that the statements were
hearsay"). Thus, J.D.N.B. is not entitled to relief on his improper-
authentication claim.
II. Hearsay
J.D.N.B. also argues on appeal that the only evidence presented
below to show that the handgun was stolen was hearsay that did not meet
any exceptions to the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence.
More specifically, J.D.N.B. argues that the HPD reports constituted
neither a public record under Rule 803(8), Ala. R. Evid., nor a business
record under Rule 803(6), Ala. R. Evid. (J.D.N.B.'s brief, pp. 15-23.)
We first note that Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid., defines hearsay as "a
statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the
6 CR-2024-0211
trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted." In this case, the sole evidence offered by the State to prove
that the handgun was, in fact, stolen was the HPD reports. Although Off.
Wooldridge testified that he got a "return," after an NCIC search, which
indicated that the handgun was stolen, the State asserted that it was not
offering this testimony by Off. Wooldridge for the "truth of the matter,"
and the trial court admitted that testimony to show Off. Wooldridge's
subsequent actions only. (R. 7-8.) Furthermore, Off. Wooldridge testified
that he spoke with an HPD representative, who confirmed that the
handgun was stolen, but the State again asserted that it was "not offering
[this evidence] for the truth of the matter asserted." (R. 9.) Contrary to
the State's arguments at trial, the reports of the HPD that were admitted
as State's Exhibit 1 were offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e.,
to establish that the handgun had been stolen, and they were offered
against a defendant in relation to a criminal charge. Off. Wooldridge did
not have firsthand knowledge of the events described in the HPD reports
or that the handgun had actually been stolen. Likewise, there was no
evidence that the HPD officer who composed the HPD reports had
firsthand knowledge regarding the stolen handgun. Moreover, there was
7 CR-2024-0211
no testimony from anyone with firsthand knowledge that the handgun
had been stolen. The HPD officer simply recorded a statement
identifying the serial number, make, and model of the handgun from the
person who allegedly reported that his pistol had been stolen. (See C. 43-
48 (State's Exhibit 1, the HPD police reports).) Thus, the HPD reports
constituted hearsay, and the victim's statements that the handgun was
stolen in the burglary of a motor vehicle and providing the serial number
of the allegedly stolen handgun was hearsay within hearsay or, as
J.D.N.B. argued below, "double hearsay."
Moreover,
"Alabama courts have acknowledged the general principle that police reports, whether of accidents or other events, may be excluded as hearsay. See Gardner v. Williams, 390 So. 2d 304, 307 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980) (noting that 'the reports of investigating officers are not ordinarily admissible as they are deemed hearsay'); Nettles v. Bishop, 289 Ala. 100, 105, 266 So. 2d 260, 264 (1972) (noting the apparent general rule that 'the report of an investigating officer is not admissible in evidence as being hearsay'); and Vest v. Gay, 275 Ala. 286, 290, 154 So. 2d 297, 300 (1963) (acknowledging 'the settled rule in our jurisdiction that the reports of investigating officers are not admissible in evidence, as being hearsay')."
Crusoe v. Davis, 176 So. 3d 1200, 1203 (Ala. 2015) (footnote omitted). In
short, the contents of a report that do not reflect what the testifying
8 CR-2024-0211
officer observed must qualify for a hearsay exception to be admissible.
See id.
In this case, Off. Wooldridge did not have firsthand knowledge of
the information contained in the HPD reports, so the State sought to have
the reports admitted under the public-records exception to the hearsay
rule. Relying on Charles W. Gamble et al., McElroy's Alabama Evidence
§ 266.01(5) (7th ed. 2020), the State argued at trial that the HPD reports
were admissible under Rule 803(8), Ala. R. Evid. J.D.N.B., however,
objected repeatedly that the HPD reports and their contents were
"hearsay." (R. 7-11, 15.) The trial court ultimately admitted the HPD
reports, also citing McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 266.01(5). (R. 16.)
J.D.N.B. argues on appeal that the HPD reports did not satisfy the
public-records exception under Rule 803(8), which states that "the
following are not excluded by the hearsay rule":
"Records, reports, statements, or data compilations, in any form, of public offices or agencies, setting forth (A) the activities of the office or agency, or (B) matters observed pursuant to duty imposed by law as to which matters there was a duty to report, excluding, however, when offered against the defendant in criminal cases, matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel, or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and against the state or governmental authority in criminal cases, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority
9 CR-2024-0211
granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness."
(Emphasis added.)
We agree with J.D.N.B. that, under the plain language of the rule,
the HPD reports were not admissible under the public-records exception,
Rule 803(8), because they were not based on the testifying officer's
firsthand knowledge and were offered against a defendant in a criminal
case. We further note that the State cites no Alabama case for the
proposition that a police report constitutes a public record under Rule
803(8); nor have we found one. 3
J.D.N.B. also asserts on appeal that the HPD reports were not
admissible under the business-records exception found in Rule 803(6),
3On appeal, the State continues to rely solely on McElroy's Alabama
Evidence in arguing that the HPD reports were not hearsay because, the State contends, the reports were public records under Rule 803(8). Notably, McElroy's cites no Alabama case for the proposition that a police report satisfies the public-records exception to hearsay. McElroy's commentary on Rule 803(8) notes that some "modern authority" in other jurisdictions have held that introduction of a police report is admissible "if the person making the report is produced in court and subject to cross- examination." However, no one from the HPD testified at J.D.N.B.'s trial. Also, despite the lack of authority for its public-records argument, the State does not argue on appeal that the HPD reports were admissible under any other hearsay exception. 10 CR-2024-0211
Ala. R. Evid., which states that the "following are not excluded by the
hearsay rule":
"A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), Rule 902(12), or a statute permitting certification, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness."
The Advisory Committee's Notes to Rule 803(6) state:
" As a condition precedent to admissibility under this hearsay exception, the proponent must call a witness to lay the prescribed foundation. This is largely the same foundation applicable under pre-rules case law and includes testimony that the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the record. See Ex parte Frith, 526 So. 2d 880 (Ala. 1987). There is no requirement that the authenticating witness be the custodian, entrant, or maker of the record. See Hammett v. State, 482 So. 2d 1330, 1334 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). Not only must the record be relevant to regularly conducted business, but it must be shown that the generation of such a record is regularly conducted activity of the business. It is this latter requirement that has caused courts to exclude certain records made solely in anticipation of, and in preparation for, pending
11 CR-2024-0211
litigation. See, e.g., United States v. Kim, 595 F.2d 755, 761 (D.C. Cir. 1979)."
The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has further explained:
"The rationale for the business-records exception to the hearsay rule is that reliability is assured because the maker of the record relies on the record in the regular course of business activities. See Ex parte Firth, 526 So. 2d 880, 882 (Ala. 1987). The 'regular course' of business 'must find its meaning in the inherent nature of the business in question and in the methods systematically employed for the conduct of the business as a business.' Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 115, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L. Ed. 645 (1943). When an organization does not rely upon particular records for the performance of its functions, those records are not business records within the meaning of the Rule 803(6) exception to the hearsay rule. See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. at 114, 63 S. Ct. 477 (holding that grade-crossing accident reports prepared for a railroad were not business records because they were not prepared 'for the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business'; rather, '[the] reports are calculated for use essentially in the court, not in the business. Their primary utility is in litigating, not in railroading.'). It is not enough to qualify under the business-records exception to show that the records are regularly prepared; instead, a court must evaluate 'the character of the records and their earmarks of reliability … acquired from their source and origin and the nature of their compilation.' Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. at 114, 63 S. Ct. 477."
T.C. v. Cullman Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 899 So. 2d 281, 288 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2004). In short, "[a] declarant's statement must have been made
pursuant to a routine business duty in order for it to be excluded from
the hearsay rule." Reeves v. King, 534 So. 2d 1107, 1110 (Ala. 1988)
12 CR-2024-0211
(emphasis added). "[T]he business records exception [does not] operate
like an umbrella, shielding all statements embodied in the record from
the hearsay rule." Id.
In Ingmire v. State, 215 So. 3d 592 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016), this
Court held that "NCIC" reports of a stolen four-wheeler were
inadmissible hearsay that "did not fall within the business-records
exception [under Rule 803(6)] -- or any other exception --to the hearsay
rule." Id. at 597. In so holding, we noted that the testifying officer did
not testify to any facts that would show the "regularity of the preparation
of the NCIC reports," that the reports were "regularly relied on," or that
the reports were "trustworthy." Id. Off. Wooldridge's testimony similarly
failed to establish that the HPD reports satisfied the qualifications for a
business record.
Finally, even if Off. Wooldridge's testimony had established that
the reports made by the HPD were business records, the reports contain
additional hearsay statements from the victim who initially reported that
the handgun was stolen and later provided the serial number of the
allegedly stolen handgun. Although incident reports may be made in the
regular course of police business, the victim's statements were not made
13 CR-2024-0211
in the regular course of any regular business activity. The victim's
statements in the initial report could arguably satisfy a "present sense
impression" or "excited utterance" exception to hearsay, under Rule 803
(1) and (2), Ala. R. Evid. However, no such argument has been advanced
by the State, and neither of those exceptions appears to be plausible.
Although the theft was allegedly discovered at 6:00 a.m. on November 25,
2020, and reported minutes later at 6:12 a.m., the serial number, which
was used to identify J.D.N.B.'s handgun as the stolen handgun, was not
reported to HPD until December 2, 2020. (C. 43-45, 46-48.)
Accordingly, we hold that, based upon the hearsay contained in the
HPD reports and the reports themselves, which were also hearsay, the
trial court erred by admitting the HPD reports over J.D.N.B.'s multiple
hearsay objections. Furthermore, as in Ingmire, "we cannot say that
the admission of the [HPD-reports] testimony was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt." 215 So. 3d at 598. "[T]he charge against [J.D.N.B.]
required the State to prove that the [handgun] was, in fact, stolen, and
the only testimony that the [handgun] was actually stolen was [Off.
Wooldridge's] impermissible hearsay." Id. Accordingly, we must reverse
J.D.N.B.'s adjudication and sentence as a youthful offender. This
14 CR-2024-0211
conclusion does not, however, require us to render judgment in J.D.N.B.'s
favor, as he suggests.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence
J.D.N.B. contends that, because the HPD reports were erroneously
admitted, there was insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to
support his youthful-offender adjudication for receiving stolen property
in the second degree. J.D.N.B. then contends that this Court should
therefore "reverse his [youthful-offender adjudication] and render a
judgment of acquittal." (J.D.N.B.'s brief, pp. 13-24.)
To support his contention that a judgment of acquittal should be
rendered, J.D.N.B. relies on Harmon v. State, 404 So. 3d 286 (Ala. Crim.
App. 2024). However, in Harmon this Court reversed Harmon's
conviction and rendered a judgment in his favor because the trial court
had erred in denying Harmon's motion for judgment of acquittal because
there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to establish that
Harmon had constructively possessed a short-barreled shotgun, not
because Harmon's conviction relied upon improperly admitted evidence.
Here, although the HPD reports, which provided the evidence proving
that the handgun was stolen, were erroneously admitted into evidence,
15 CR-2024-0211
the evidence admitted at trial was sufficient to support the trial court's
adjudication that J.D.N.B. was guilty of receiving stolen property in the
second degree.
Under § 13A-8-16, Ala. Code 1975, "[a] person commits the crime of
receiving stolen property if he intentionally receives, retains or disposes
of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or having reasonable
grounds to believe it has been stolen, unless the property is received,
retained or disposed of with intent to restore it to the owner." "Direct
evidence is not required to prove the corpus delicti of receiving stolen
property; rather, it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which
the [fact-finder] may infer that the offense has been committed."
Anderson v. State, 533 So. 2d 694, 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). Although
J.D.N.B. does argue on appeal that there was no admissible evidence
regarding the identity of the owner of the handgun, the only actual
element of the offense that he contests on appeal is whether the State
established that the handgun was stolen. J.D.N.B. correctly asserts that
the only evidence establishing that the handgun was, in fact, stolen, was
the inadmissible HPD reports. However, as the Alabama Supreme Court
explained in Lindley v. State, 728 So. 2d 1153 (Ala. 1998), an appellate
16 CR-2024-0211
court's consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence must include even
the erroneously admitted evidence.
In Lindley, as here, "[t]he only evidence connecting Lindley to the
crimes [charged] consisted of a statement made to an investigating officer
by Billy Joe Scott, a friend of Lindley's, in which Scott stated that Lindley
had told him he had thrown the tear gas bomb." 728 So. 2d at 1154. This
Court held that Scott's statement was erroneously admitted into
evidence, reversed his conviction, and rendered a judgment in Lindley's
favor. Id. at 1154-55. The State sought certiorari review in the Alabama
Supreme Court. Id. at 1155. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed that
Scott's previous statement was erroneously admitted into evidence as a
"past recollection recorded." Id. at 1156. Thereafter, the Alabama
Supreme Court addressed "whether double jeopardy considerations
prevent[ed] the State from retrying Lindley" when the evidence would
have been insufficient to support Lindley's conviction absent the
erroneously admitted statement. Id. The Alabama Supreme Court
explained:
"With respect to an appellate court's reversal of a conviction, the Supreme Court long has embraced the general rule that when a reversal is based on procedural trial error, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial. United
17 CR-2024-0211
States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 41 L. Ed. 300 (1896). The Supreme Court has provided a narrow exception to the general rule allowing retrial. Where a conviction is reversed solely on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, retrial is barred because such a reversal is equivalent to an acquittal by the trial court. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S. Ct. 2141, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1978).
"In Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S. Ct. 285, 102 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1988), the Supreme Court considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a retrial when an appellate court's correction of a trial error involving an evidentiary ruling render[ed] the remaining evidence insufficient to support the conviction….
"On certiorari review, the Supreme Court recognized that although the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial when a conviction is reversed solely on the basis of an insufficiency of the evidence, it does not bar retrial when a conviction is reversed based on trial error:
" 'Burks was careful to point out that reversal based solely on evidentiary insufficiency has fundamentally different implications, for double jeopardy purposes, than a reversal based on such ordinary "trial errors" as the "incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence." 437 U.S., at 14-16, 98 S. Ct. 2141. While the former is in effect a finding "that the government has failed to prove its case" against the defendant, the latter "implies nothing with respect to the guilt or innocence of the defendant," but is simply "a determination that [he] has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in some fundamental respect." Id. at 15, 98 S. Ct. 2141 (emphasis added [in Lockhart]).
18 CR-2024-0211
" 'It appears to us to be beyond dispute that this is a situation described in Burks as reversal for "trial error" -- the trial court erred in admitting a particular piece of evidence, and without it there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment of conviction. But clearly with that evidence, there was enough to support the sentence…. The basis for the Burks exception to the general rule [of allowing retrial after trial error] is that a reversal for insufficiency of the evidence should be treated no differently than a trial court's granting a judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. A trial court in passing on such a motion considers all of the evidence it has admitted, and to make the analogy complete it must be this same quantum of evidence which is considered by the reviewing court.'
"Lockhart, 488 U.S. at 40-42, 109 S. Ct. 285 (quoting Burks, 437 U.S. at 14-16, 98 S. Ct. 2141) (last emphasis added; other emphasis in Lockhart). Thus, the Supreme Court held that 'where the evidence offered by the State and admitted by the trial court -- whether erroneously or not -- would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial.' Id. at 34, 109 S. Ct. 285."
Lindley, 728 So. 2d at 1156-57 (footnote omitted).
Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lockhart
v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988), the Alabama Supreme Court thus held:
"In this present case, the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence -- Scott's prior inconsistent statement -- as substantive evidence of Lindley's guilt. The total evidence offered by the State and admitted by the trial court, however, whether erroneously admitted as substantive evidence or not, was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict. Thus, the Double
19 CR-2024-0211
Jeopardy Clause does not preclude the State from retrying Lindley."
Lindley, 728 So. 2d at 1158 (footnote omitted).
Here, J.D.N.B. argues that the evidence of his guilt was insufficient
based on the State's inadmissible evidence being the only proof that the
handgun was, in fact, stolen.4 (J.D.N.B.'s brief, p. 13-14.) However,
although the HPD reports were erroneously admitted, the reports were
nonetheless admitted into evidence and provided proof that the handgun
was stolen. Based on Lindley, we must consider all the evidence admitted
before the trial court at the time of J.D.N.B.'s motion for judgment of
acquittal. Because the State's evidence was sufficient to sustain
J.D.N.B.'s youthful-offender adjudication, J.D.N.B. is not entitled to a
judgment of acquittal and a rendering of the circuit court's verdict.
"While the State cannot on retrial submit [the erroneously admitted
evidence], it should have the opportunity to submit other evidence of
[J.D.N.B.'s] guilt." Lindley, 728 So. 2d at 1158. "If the State has no
4J.D.N.B. further alleges that the State also had to prove that the
handgun was "the property of Jarvell Mitchell," the alleged victim in Houston, Texas; however, no such proof is required. See § 13A-8-16(a), Ala. Code 1975, and § 13A-8-18(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975. See also Wasp v. State, 647 So. 2d 81, 82-83 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). 20 CR-2024-0211
additional evidence, then the trial court should enter a judgment of
acquittal." Id.
Conclusion
For these reasons, J.D.N.B.'s adjudication and sentence as a
youthful offender is reversed, and this cause is remanded for action
consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Windom, P.J., and Kellum and Anderson, JJ., concur. Minor, J.,
concurs in part and concurs in the result in part, with opinion.
21 CR-2024-0211
MINOR, Judge, concurring in part and concurring in the result.
I concur in all parts of the Court's opinion except for Part III of the
"Discussion" section; as to Part III, I concur in the result.